9 ms·

Agreed. I don't want either (in general, there might be exception s). I obviously want to hold people (the people that actually have the kiddie porn, that are a

by hfbff 4y ago

Agreed. I don't want either (in general, there might be exception s). I obviously want to hold people (the people that actually have the kiddie porn, that are actually posting the hate speech) accountably for kiddie porn, inciting terrorism and even hate speech, but I don't generally want vendors to be accountable.

jfengel 4y ago
Why should they be held responsible for inciting terrorism? They're not injuring anybody.
- Hackbraten 4y ago
  One could argue that they are indeed injuring people, by stochastic terrorism [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_te...
- brazzy 4y ago
  Because it still ends up with people killed. Free speech absolutism is poison for actual freedom.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I agree. I think it needs a lot more thought than the OP was giving it, though of course that kind of sarcasm reads poorly on the Internet.
throwup 4y ago
Throughout history vendors have generally not been responsible for the actions of their users. Nobody blames Sharpie if someone uses their markers to make a giant poster with hate speech. Nobody blames the USPS if someone mails a letter with a death threat. Nobody blames Verizon if somebody makes a phone call to bully their kid. Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech. This is a dangerous direction for the world to be moving in.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  It's not about who makes the tools, it's about what users want to see. Users don't want to see giant posters of hate speech on Twitter. If they do, they'll stop using Twitter. It just so happens that Twitter is the only tool that can make things users see on Twitter. People still don't blame Sharpie or USPS or Verizon. People have tried to blame WhatsApp, it doesn't stick because WhatsApp is private. The culture hasn't magically changed. Companies like Twitter know that when advertisers and users complain about hate speech, they're not just asking for Twitter to be held "responsible" or whatever that means, they're telling Twitter that they will leave.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Users don't see that stuff unless they want to. Advertisers don't care unless their ads appear next to it. And these platforms have pretty much solved this. E.g. Google search results contain the full cesspit of the internet, yet everyone advertises with Google. The issue came when the news media decided that it was newsworthy that undesirables we're saying undesirable things on social media and blamed the platform as a whole. Now it's a pr issue for advertisers to be on the platform at all whether or not they are adjacent to undesirable content.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I think the people who get harassed on Twitter, and have to spend a significant amount of their Twitter-using time dealing with that, would disagree with you.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        Seems like this is solved by the block button.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        If I have to block a lot of people I might as well block Twitter.
llbeansandrice 4y ago
Someone has to hold those people accountable though. Either platforms, or a centralized government entity. That’s without getting into the issue of allowing that type of stuff to continue to exist on platforms if the ideal scenario is for Meta/Twitter/etc. To just not police their platforms at all.
- blue039 4y ago
  > Someone has to hold those people accountable though. Either platforms, or a centralized government entity. Or we could just say people on the internet are assholes and you need thicker skin. Would you be okay with government ID required to sign up to any website? If so, I can see why you have a vengeance complex.
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    > you need thicker skin We're talking about holding people accountable for child porn, and inciting terrorism. What the actual fuck are you talking about "need a thicker skin"?
judge2020 4y ago
Why is this all-or-nothing for you? Surely, if someone posts CSAM on YouTube, or even Google Photos, they should remain accountable unto themselves to remove content that is both illegal and morally reprehensible? Or should someone's Google Photos be allowed to hold any amount of CSAM to the point where it's a de-facto private hard drive?

by hfbff 4y ago

jfengel 4y ago

Why should they be held responsible for inciting terrorism? They're not injuring anybody.

Hackbraten 4y ago
One could argue that they are indeed injuring people, by stochastic terrorism [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_te...
brazzy 4y ago
Because it still ends up with people killed. Free speech absolutism is poison for actual freedom.
- jfengel 4y ago
  I agree. I think it needs a lot more thought than the OP was giving it, though of course that kind of sarcasm reads poorly on the Internet.

throwup 4y ago

Throughout history vendors have generally not been responsible for the actions of their users. Nobody blames Sharpie if someone uses their markers to make a giant poster with hate speech. Nobody blames the USPS if someone mails a letter with a death threat. Nobody blames Verizon if somebody makes a phone call to bully their kid. Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech. This is a dangerous direction for the world to be moving in.

themacguffinman 4y ago
It's not about who makes the tools, it's about what users want to see. Users don't want to see giant posters of hate speech on Twitter. If they do, they'll stop using Twitter. It just so happens that Twitter is the only tool that can make things users see on Twitter. People still don't blame Sharpie or USPS or Verizon. People have tried to blame WhatsApp, it doesn't stick because WhatsApp is private. The culture hasn't magically changed. Companies like Twitter know that when advertisers and users complain about hate speech, they're not just asking for Twitter to be held "responsible" or whatever that means, they're telling Twitter that they will leave.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Users don't see that stuff unless they want to. Advertisers don't care unless their ads appear next to it. And these platforms have pretty much solved this. E.g. Google search results contain the full cesspit of the internet, yet everyone advertises with Google. The issue came when the news media decided that it was newsworthy that undesirables we're saying undesirable things on social media and blamed the platform as a whole. Now it's a pr issue for advertisers to be on the platform at all whether or not they are adjacent to undesirable content.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think the people who get harassed on Twitter, and have to spend a significant amount of their Twitter-using time dealing with that, would disagree with you.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Seems like this is solved by the block button.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        If I have to block a lot of people I might as well block Twitter.

llbeansandrice 4y ago

Someone has to hold those people accountable though. Either platforms, or a centralized government entity. That’s without getting into the issue of allowing that type of stuff to continue to exist on platforms if the ideal scenario is for Meta/Twitter/etc. To just not police their platforms at all.

blue039 4y ago
> Someone has to hold those people accountable though. Either platforms, or a centralized government entity. Or we could just say people on the internet are assholes and you need thicker skin. Would you be okay with government ID required to sign up to any website? If so, I can see why you have a vengeance complex.
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  > you need thicker skin We're talking about holding people accountable for child porn, and inciting terrorism. What the actual fuck are you talking about "need a thicker skin"?

judge2020 4y ago

Why is this all-or-nothing for you? Surely, if someone posts CSAM on YouTube, or even Google Photos, they should remain accountable unto themselves to remove content that is both illegal and morally reprehensible? Or should someone's Google Photos be allowed to hold any amount of CSAM to the point where it's a de-facto private hard drive?